Following is a copy of the remarks made by David Stieper at the September 23rd special Village Board meeting published with the permission of the author at the request of some of our readers:
When you get right down to brass tacks, the seven of you are called upon to decide whether 5-acre residential zoning standards will be the “only consideration” concerning “development” and “use” on parcels of land in Barrington Hills zoned R-1 (5 acres) or will these residential zoning standards take a “back seat” to commercial enterprise when this enterprise takes the form of “horse boarding for a fee”; on any scale; large or small?
Barrington hills has always been zoned “residential R1-R4” and not commercial; with some minor exception none relevant here. Just take a look at our zoning map. To allow a business endeavor like horse boarding to trump residential zoning standards which have been in place in Barrington Hills for 42 years, amends our zoning code from “residential use” to mixed use “residential/commercial”.
Village government changed the paradigm of our code to commercial use in R1 zoning by legislative fiat rather than the statutory requirement of referendum; the latter action taken when our single purpose residential zoning code was adopted in 1977. If this board is inclined to allow the Anderson II Horse Boarding Ordinance to remain in our code, this should be done by vote of the people of Barrington Hills through referendum and not through the vote of a few volunteer elected officials; three of which who were materially conflicted and should have never participated in the process.
Like you, the previous village board took an “oath of office” to uphold and enforce our residential zoning code not change the substance of it from “residential use” to “residential use and something else.” From 1977, when the village code was adopted through the year 2006, boarding for a fee in Barrington Hills was not a permitted use. From 2006 to adoption of Anderson II, boarding for a fee was legal to a limited extent under the former home occupation ordinance, which provided boarding for a fee was legal so long as this business practice was sublime, not open and obvious to neighbors or the public at large.
Anderson II, not only allows boarding for a fee to be open and obvious, but provides when this business activity is in conflict with residential zoning standards – – boarding for a fee will prevail. Anderson II allows the business of horse boarding for a fee to the exclusion of residential zoning standards; the same residential standards which were granted to each and every one of us when we purchased our homes; whether we owned horses or not.
Anderson II is not an ordinance to be read in a vacuum standing alone simply creating a “new single use”; but is a rewrite of our entire zoning code changing us from zoning category “5-acre residential” to mixed use “residential and business” with the latter given priority when these two zoning uses converge.
When I moved here in 2000, the village zoning code treated equestrian activities as a hobby for those who enjoyed it and could afford it. 15 years later through adoption of Anderson II, we are told equestrian activities are no longer just a hobby but a business endeavor where residents are called upon to subsidize neighboring profiteers engaged in boarding through sacrifice of their individual residential zoning rights. Tell me, how does sacrificing “residential zoning standards” in a residential community like Barrington Hills for the sake of commercial enterprise help residential property values?
I am on the record in two elections for trustee supporting the business of boarding for a fee on larger properties; but under the guidelines of “special use” criterion where objective residential zoning standards remain paramount. For smaller boarding operations, we should reinstate the former home occupation ordinance which worked so well for so many over the years which Anderson II inexplicably took away from us.
“Special use” and “home occupation” is the only reasonable way to permit this or any business use in our residential community. All you have to do is see how other municipalities deal with desired “business activities” in “residentially zoned areas”. There is no municipality or county in any state in the united states (save Louisiana) which allows commercial endeavors like horse boarding to possess the designation “permitted use” in a residential zoned district; that is to say, until misguided Barrington Hills’ adoption of Anderson II.
I mean what I said before and is why I am here saying it again, if Anderson II is allowed to stand in present form as a “permitted use”, in time, Anderson II will lead to the destruction of 5 acre residential zoning in Barrington Hills.
Do not let supporters of Anderson II fool you!
You might in some municipalities or counties find horse boarding as a permitted use under the definition of “agriculture” when the municipality or county contains an “agriculture district” on its zoning map. Barrington Hills has no such district on its map. You will never find (except for Barrington Hills through adoption of Anderson II) horse boarding as a permitted use in geographical areas zoned exclusively residential.
For if you did, this would be an act of government malfeasance!
The board should do what former ZBA Chairman Judith Freeman recommended you to do in 2011, as the only approach for Barrington Hills; and that is zone larger scale horse boarding operations as a “special use”. Illinois courts support this approach; our village code supports this approach; in 2011, elected and appointed Barrington Hills political office holders supported this approach; And most importantly, the results of the last election demonstrate an overwhelming majority of Barrington Hills residents support this approach.
I close by saying: “Let’s be through with Anderson II!”
The following comment was presented to the Board of Trustees at the Special Meeting of September 23, 2015.
Good evening, Mr. President and Members of the Board.
My name is Jonathan Knight and, although no longer a resident of Barrington Hills, I offer my comments from the perspective of one who served the Village as a Zoning Board Member from the years 2000 to 2011, the last six years as ZBA Chairman. During my tenure as Chairman, I strived to adhere to the law, both as written and in spirit, in conducting the matters before the ZBA. I am proud to say that in the one and only lawsuit brought against the Village and the ZBA during my tenure, the Courts found in favor of the Village and ZBA, from the Circuit to the Appellate Court levels. That suit was initiated by the owners of the Commercial Boarding Operation found to be in violation of Village Code.
Additionally, the Home Occupation Ordinance was crafted under my direction. As a side note, some have claimed the wordage in the Ordinance stating “nothwithstanding the foregoing” has caused confusion. That assertion is based on hope, not fact. The wordage merited much discussion and was crafted by the ZBA Village Counsel at the time, Douglas Wambach to eliminate any confusion. The Appellate Court confirmed this fact. Commercial Boarding has always been allowed under Home Occupation, and any assertions to the contrary are false and self-serving.
I urge you to settle this issue for two reasons, namely that the subject legislation is flawed and the legislative process was flawed.
Tonight, I am addressing only the second reason, the legislative process, which I believe to have been corrupted beyond redemption.
The attached document entitled “ZBA Overview” is on the Village website under ZBA Documents. It outlines the procedures followed by the ZBA. I am the author of that document, and completed it with the approval and participation of Douglas Wambach, then Village Counsel for the ZBA, and Robert Kosin, Village Director of Administration.
Three important points listed on the “ZBA Overview” document are:
• The ZBA makes findings of facts based on the testimony of expert and lay
witnesses. Decisions must be based on facts presented to the ZBA in an
open meeting.
• The ZBA does not enjoy the luxury of advocacy. Decisions are not based on a popular vote or by private lobbying of Board Members. Board Members by statute must be open and un-biased in their consideration of petitions before them.
• All information that any member of the public wishes to transmit to Zoning Board Members must be submitted through the Village Clerk:
(Note: The Chairman and ZBA Members referenced in the following text were serving at the time that the subject legislation was processed and enacted).
The entire process, from beginning to end, was clearly corrupted by the ZBA Chairman and some ZBA Members by their ignoring the rules of conduct as referenced in the “ZBA Overview”. I will cite just eight of the many instances of corruption of the process:
1. At the first hearing, the Chairman admitted that discussions took place with the first petitioner, emphasizing that “many” were spoken to about the pending legislation. Is this “private lobbying” by some, or many interested parties to the legislation? The Member claiming status of sole drafting of the subject Amendment in one evening, indicated input from others in the process. This raises the specter of “Ex parte” communications.
“Ex parte is Latin meaning “from or on one side only, with the other side absent or unrepresented. In a democratic society, open, fair decision making is critical to whether the public trusts what the government is doing. In planning circles, ex parte, or one-sided communications, are usually problematic, either legally, ethically, or both…” – Talking Behind the Public’s Back – The Ex-Parte Problem Ted Shekell, AICP.
Mr. Kosin explained the reason all information being directed through the Village Clerk for dissemination to other ZBA Board Members is to ensure that all will have the same information in hand before any meetings or hearings take place.
2. At the September 11, 2014 hearing, the Member/author of the subject amendment referenced its research. Another Member requested copies of the research, but was advised that none was available and was told to do its own research. A conclusion is that the research was never done or was not disseminated to, nor meant to be shared with other Board Members. These types of exchanges were typical throughout the process. Apparently, “research” was based on memory of prior year’s discussions by previous ZBAs, or “emotional” comments made by residents at hearings.
There is a reason for basing ZBA decisions on “facts”, for ultimately the validity of legislation must be based on “facts”. In the subject hearings, review of transcripts indicates that no actual “facts” were indicated to support the legislation, only opinions.
3. Cooperation between other Village Boards and Commissions and the ZBA was the norm in times past. The Equestrian Commission was part and parcel of previous discussions and hearings on pending legislation that affected Village Equestrian practices. The Equestrian Commission was absent in this process. At the September 2, 2015 Equestrian Commission meeting, their August 1, 2014 meeting notes were disclosed, which included recommendation to send to the ZBA their red-lined version of the Amendments then under discussion. Their recommendation excluded retroactivity of the any legislation. However, none on the Equestrian Commission came forth at any hearings to present this document.
Is this indicative of further tampering of the process by excluding the recommendations of a Commission to the ZBA, particularly on a matter previously of great importance to the Equestrian Commission?
4. During the hearing held on July 21, 2015, the Chairman denied a Member the right to question Village Counsel for the ZBA on subject matter pertaining to the Petition before the Board. The same Member was denied the right by the Chairman, multiple times, to cross-examine the petitioner. The Petitioner stated that it was advised by the Chairman that it would not be subject to any questioning. This was contrary to the process normally followed by any ZBA in the hearing process.
The implication is that the process is only “open” to what the Chairman cared to hear.
5. The Petitioner introduced at the July 21, 2015 hearing was given an open ended time limit to present its Petition, including its statements and those of its Attorney. Time limits were not even mentioned by the Chairman. At the September 9, 2014 hearing, Counsel for first Petitioner on the Agenda, was admonished by the Chairman at 20 minutes into its presentation that the Village Rules dictated a 10 minute time limit, and was advised to close up the presentation.
The conclusion is that “objectivity” was lacking in the treatment of all but one Petitioner. Again, a corruption of the process.
6. During the hearing of December 3, 2014, a ZBA Board Member attempted to continue discussion with questions of other Board Members and Village Counsel, but was prevented by continued motions of another Board Member, the author of the subject legislation, to “close” discussion. I have never witnessed, nor would allow, during my tenure as Chairman, such actions to discourage open discussion of any issues before the Board.
The Chairman, via three other Members of the ZBA, continually tried to limit discussion that might weigh against the Chairman’s expectations of outcome.
7. Being open and un-biased in their decision making process is an absolute in dealing with residents on zoning matters. Occasionally, Members voluntarily or are encouraged to recuse themselves from a hearing because of a real or potential conflict of interest.
A business and fiduciary relationship between the author of the subject legislation recently came to light, but went undisclosed during the hearing process, thus casting a cloud on the hearings.
In August of 2015, by Petition, the Chairman presiding over the ZBA at the time subject legislation was enacted, claimed an interest in the legislation (previously un-disclosed) by stating that “The Village’s inadequate defense of the Text Amendment may or will result in an order of judgment directly and adversely affecting the Petitioner”.
I believe this un-disclosed interest indicates a position of advocacy on the part of the Chairman, and should have been cause for recusal.
8. In context of the subject legislation, it is important to note that, at the September 11, 2014 hearing, the author of the subject legislation stated (from the transcript):
“I’m trying to find and make sure that people are reasonable and responsible to this. As I looked at some of the other text amendments, there were some that seemed to be designed strictly to favor a specific resident. Even Mr. LeCompte had a few provisions that I felt may have been designed to favor him for other reasons, for example, retroactive provisions. I asked, you know, I struck that from my amendments. I struck those provisions in my amendment. So the goal here was to try to address the concerns of those that I’d heard within the village and keep the safety of the village and the residents of the village in mind as I put this together and proposed these amendments”.
Is the inclusion of this in the subject legislation indicative of “private lobbying”?
Mr. President and Members of the Board, I believe the decision before you includes a greater responsibility to your Village beyond just eliminating flawed legislation. Recalling the legislation will also restore the full integrity of the processes involved in Village Government, its Zoning Board of Appeals and Board of Trustees. I believe the majority of this Board was elected to do just that.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The following Exhibit (from Village website) was attached to Jonathan Knight comment at Special Board Meeting of September 23, 2015:
Overview of the Barrington Hills Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
• The ZBA serves two main functions: (1) Administrative: interpreting
zoning ordinances and (2) Legislative: making recommendations to Village
Board or other Governmental Bodies.
• The ZBA is composed of 7 residents appointed by Board of Trustees, with
terms of 1 to 7 years. One for one (1) year, one for two (2) years, one for
three (3) years, one for four (4) years, one for five (5) years, one for six (6)
years, and one for seven (7) years. Board Members are volunteers and serve
without compensation.
• ZBA meetings by statute are always open to the public and all issues brought
before the Zoning Board of Appeals are reviewed without bias or
preferential treatment, and are conducted in a non-antagonistic manner.
• Issues typically involve Variances, Special Uses, Map and Text
amendments. (Text amendments involve changing the zoning statutes,
whereas map amendments involve changing the zoning of a parcel).
• Petitioners are entitled to be heard by the ZBA, whose “due process” is
required to be fair and equitable and is not arbitrary or capricious.
• ZBA meetings can be legal, fact-finding proceedings or can be held for
informational purposes. When sworn testimony is given and is subject to
cross-examination, hearings by legal definition are adversarial.
• The ZBA makes findings of facts based on the testimony of expert and lay
witnesses. Decisions must be based on facts presented to the ZBA in an
open meeting.
• The ZBA’s decision-making process follows the standards set forth in the
Village Code.
• The ZBA has authority by Village statute to grant Variances within
prescribed limits. However, it can only make recommendations to the
Village Board regarding Special Uses and Map and Text Amendments.
Village Board may approve or deny the recommendations of the ZBA.
• Decisions on Variances require the concurring votes of five Members for
approval. Decisions on recommendations to Village Board require four
concurring votes for approval.
• The ZBA does welcome comments from the public, as there are often
circumstances or questions that should be brought to the attention of the
ZBA so that nothing is overlooked in the questioning of those bringing
petitions before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
• The ZBA does not enjoy the luxury of advocacy. Decisions are not based on
a popular vote or by private lobbying of Board Members. Board Members
by statute must be open and un-biased in their consideration of petitions
before them.
• It is an absolute invasion of privacy of any Board Member and inappropriate
for a Village resident or non-resident, to distribute to the public at large the
email address or fax number of a Board Member in the hopes of influencing
that Board Member by an influx of information on a pending issue.
Information must not be distributed privately to Board Members.
• All information that any member of the public wishes to transmit to Zoning
Board Members must be submitted through the Village Clerk:
Village Clerk
Village of Barrington Hills
112 Algonquin Road
Barrington Hills, Illinois 60010-5199
Phone: 847.551.3000
Fax: 847.551.3050
clerk@barringtonhills-il.gov
• A copy of the ZONING REGULATIONS booklet may be purchased at the
Village Hall. VILLAGE CODE is available on the Village Website at:
http://www.barringtonhills-il.gov
Facts allude the discussion on the Anderson II Text Amendment. Mr. Stieper (thank you) provides us with these facts, just as he did as a ZBA Member during the process in 2014. Anderson II eliminates Home Occupation rights and gives commercial boarding precedence over residential rights of neighbors.
Prior to Anderson II, commercial boarding was legal within the limits of Home Occupation. Now, however, 10 commercial boarded horses, plus owned, are allowed on a 5 acre property. Floor Area restrictions and commercial times for operation now create the ability for commercial operations next door without reasonable limits.
Even though Chairperson Freeman recommended special use in 2011, that was changed in order to accommodate Oakwood Farms/LeCompte. Why else would a 7 year retroactive provision been added? Admission that the Anderson II amendment was written with LeCompte only adds to the concerns expressed with favored law making.
This forum may be the best place to enlighten all of us on the facts. Thank you Observer for publishing these. Anyone with contrary facts should engage. Why aren’t those supporting Anderson II debating the facts? During the public hearing, ex-ZBA Chair Jonathan Knight pointed out that Mr. Stieper was prevented from questioning witnesses. Why? Let’s not forget that at least one ZBA member was an illegal appointee of Mr. Abboud during the process who refused recusal.
Both polar sides of this argument agree on one thing, an independent investigation of the process merits review. Maybe then we can eliminate the rhetoric and move toward a fact based discussion that may lead to finding the truth behind allegations of pay for play politics, conflicts of interest, abuses of public office and more.
Drive down Algonquin and Old Sutton to see the polo field being built. This special use was granted by Chairperson Freeman’s ZBA in record time, about 45 days. Ex-Trustee Messer’s law firm represented the applicant. That property’s application stated it will not be used for commercial use.
With Anderson II, what can now be done with this property?
Anyone care to chime in on the logic of this situation. Most would agree with proper special use provisions for improvements to our Village, including equestrian advances. But, process matters.
Follow the money
Thank you BHO and Historian:
Had I had time to break-down the specific language of Anderson II for residents at this meeting I would have said:
The daggar in the heart of R-1 (5 Acre) residential zoning in Barrington Hills is found in the following language contained in Anderson II:
“. . . . . It is recognized that specifically that buildings, stables or structures associated with the breeding, boarding and training activities (boarding and training facilities) may exceed the size of building associated with residential . . . . . without affecting a determination that the use of such land is deemed agriculture.”
VBH Code Section 5-2-1
The “training and boarding” of horses under Anderson II is not only defined under Section 5-2-1 as a “hobby” but it is now called an “occupation” where size of this “use” and size of the “physical structures” to support this “use” are minimally restricted.
Until Anderson II, the protection afforded to residential 5 acre estate living in VBH was found in the section of the VBH code for determining the “Floor Area Ratio” (“FAR”). Specifically, the “primary” structure on any zoned lot be the “home” with the “barn” acting as an “accessory” unit or incidental to the residential sructure.
Anderson II while referring to boarding as an accessory “use”, removes all of the requirements once associated with an accessory use; specifically that the buildings associated with this “occupation” be secondary, incidental or accessory to the home. Anderson II uses the word “accessory” but boarding of horses under Anderson II is anything but “accessory”; it is a primary dominent use visible for all to see with relaxation of traffic provisions.
As long as concrete foundation and hook-up to well and septec is established, Anderson II allows “trailer and modular homes” be constructed for the hand who is hired by the profiteer to manage the mega boarding operation on any parcel of land comprised of 5 acres or more in Barrington Hills. The sad irony in all of this mishap is a VBH resident on a zoned lot comprised of less than 5 acres (R2-R4) has all of the traditional zoining protections afforded under our code since 1977, while every R1-5 Acre zoned lot is subjucated to the rights of profiteers.
I say irony because many of VBH zoned lots comprised of less than 5 acres were annexed into VBH as a means to protect 5-acre residential zoning. I think the word “Save 5 Acres” used is “buffering”. Unfortunately, through passage of Anderson II, the real enemy to 5 acre residential zoning standards is not coming from outside VBH borders as “Save 5 Acres” warned us but within our borders from “Save 5 Acres” VBH government itself.
Because “boarding” is not defined under Anderson II or elsewhere in the village code, a horse boarding profiteer can board as many horses as he or she desires on 5 acres or more by simply doing a “sale-leaseback” arrangment whereby the boarding proprietor purchases the boarded horse from the renter for the value of the lease (determined by agreed upon boarding period) and then at time of termination, the proprietor sell the horse back to the renter for $1.00. While achieving the same profit margin, this is no longer a boarding arrangement subjecting proprietor to the 10 horse limitation but a sales transaction allowing an indefinite number of income producing equine for the motivated profiteer.
Sale-Leaseback arrangement would withstand judicial scrutiny because Anderson II only prohibits renting of horses by the public on a “daily” or “hourly” basis but not for a period of rental time exceeding 1 day. This is why ZBA member and attorney Kurt Anderson incorporated this one day limitation in his Anderson II Text Amendment.
I disagree with Richard when he says there is limitation of 10 boarded horses on a 5 acre zoned lot; using a “sale-leaseback” arrangement, the number of boarded horses can be indefinite.
Thank you David Stieper for an extremely in depth, intelligent, and factual summary of the Anderson II Amendment, regarding zoning law in Barrington Hills; specifically commercial horse boarding. We are in TOTAL agreement with you.
PLEASE VOTE DOWN Anderson II.
Preserve Barrington Hill’s 5 Acre Zoning.
Cinder and Ed
IN ORDER TO RETROACTIVELY PROTECT OAKWOOD FARMS IN LITIGATION AND PROMOTE BARRINGTON HILLS AS A COMMERCIAL DESTINATION, ANDERSON II ERASED ALL RESIDENTIAL CODE PROTECTIONS. THE MOST VOCAL RESIDENTS OPPOSING ANDERSON II SHOULD BE LONG TIME EQUESTRIANS WITH A RICH HERITAGE BUILDING BARRINGTON HILLS AS A UNIQUE RURAL AND TRANQUIL COMMUNITY. A MISGUIDED FEW STOLE THE VILLAGE FROM YOU FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS AND NOW EXPECT TO CREATE BH AS A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.
ATTEMPTING TO AVOID SCRUTINY, NOW THEY SLANDER THE VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND NEW BOT TO DISTRACT FROM THE REAL ISSUES.
BE HEARD OR EXPECT THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEW NEIGHBORS BUILDING LEGAL COMMERCIAL HORSE OPERATIONS NEXT DOOR!
“David Stieper offers specific argument on why Anderson II is bad law for
Barrington Hills. Anderson II supporters relied on attacking President McLaughlin’s character at the recent BOD Meeting.
Would like to hear from any of those Anderson II supporters, who can explain as to why commercial horse boarding under Anderson II is good law for Barrington Hills residents.
Can anybody dispute Stieper’s argument?